Much has been made of the religious faith and schooling of government ministers and the relationship between these things and government policy. To my mind the topic is a trivial indulgence that diverts attention from more important questions.
Talk about politicians' faith focuses attention on the people who make decisions and not on the people affected by their decisions. To conclude that they are influenced by their faith or are unfaithful to it may give satisfaction to the person who makes the judgment, but it does nothing for those affected by unfair policies.
Nor is this kind of judgment one that Christians may make if they wish to be consistent. At the heart of Christian faith is the conviction that we all sinners saved by Christ, and so are no better than anyone else. It follows that the proper business of Christians is to refrain from judging others. It is to try to win them. Like everyone else, they are called to judge policies by their effect on human beings, especially the most vulnerable.
By these standards the Budget was problematic. Certainly it attempted to address longer term challenges of matching revenue to proper expenditure. But it penalised the most vulnerable members of society while leaving untouched subsidies to the more affluent. It also weakened the regulatory bodies necessary to protect the longer term good of society, particularly those to do with the environment and fairness.
It will make Australian society harsher. It was rightly on the nose with Australians. The fault did not lie in the Government's failure to sell it but in the noisomeness of what was on offer.
The interesting question is why people would advocate and introduce such harmful, self-destructive policies. The framers of the Budget certainly did not lack courage. When people are surprised at the rejection of their ideas they have normally been guided by ideas so self-evident to them that they believe others will need only to hear them in order to be persuaded.
The assumption underlying the Budget, one shared by both major political parties, is that the primary responsibility of the government is to promote economic growth. This is understood implicitly to be identical with the good of society.
It is also axiomatic that economic growth is best achieved by individuals competing for economic advancement with as little regulation and taxation as possible. This implies that social goods, such as education and health care, should be largely left